This one is just maddeningly stupid.
A 14 year old girl in Kansas is charged with rape because the boy who raped her in under 14 years of age. The state law says sex, consensual or not, with anyone under 14 is rape. Despite the fact that the rapist was under 14, he’s now the rapee in this case. How the hell does this make any sense to their police force? I understand law and all its trappings but when, ever, does this make sense? This reminds me of that case in late 2006 of two kids in Utah being charged with raping the other person they consensually had sex with simply because they were underage. Now, they’re labeled as sex offenders because of a voluntary act. Also, how is she being charged with sodomy? That’s an interesting charge to tack on. I suppose more information will come out once it goes to trial.
I’m glad a lawyer (with ethics!) is defending her for free in this absurd case.
Tags: 2 Comments
2 responses so far ↓
Outrageous, isn’t it?
And more generally, the “sex offender” lists are full of people who were just horny teenagers who were caught having consensual sex.
I understand the desire to create legal definitions and harsh punishments for sexual offenses, but I think the law needs to allow for sensible exceptions.
Here in Atlanta, there’s been a case going on about a high school football player who went to jail for a couple of years as a sex offender. His offense was that an underage girl gave him a blowjob at a party. He didn’t attack her or anything, there was no coercion. And by all accounts, he was a good kid who did well in school, was respected by his peers, and didn’t get into trouble. But he was 17 and she was 14, and the law was clear, so off to jail he went, branded as sex offender.
I think that they did alter part of the law here after all the hullabaloo over that case, but the idiot legislature still didn’t grandfather that kid’s case.
Wow, are you serious? I missed that one, I’m surprised my mom in ATL didn’t tell me about it. I can understand consent laws and laws of minimum age but most of those were developed eons ago, do legislatures truly think that no one advances past the snapshot in time when the law was developed?
I mean, we made it (basically) illegal to marry underage girls after the Puritans and with that came some sex laws. I know those were in place to protect kids from scary old men with candy in their pockets (or scary older teens with ecstasy in their pockets) but why isn’t leeway given for kids that are within a few years of each other? Or in this case, literally a few months of each other.
This kind of stuff is just baffling. Next thing you know, it’ll be illegal to wear monocles or something silly.